Customer service 140 characters at a time – the users’ perspective

Ana Isabel Canhoto, Oxford Brookes UniversityMoira Clark, Henley Business School

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

The problem

How should organisations respond when customers’ post brand-related comments on SM?

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Literature Review

• Satisfaction with response vs. satisfaction with transaction or relationship (Stauss, 2002)

• Disconfirmation paradigm (e.g., Oliver, 1980)• Three dimensions (Johnston 2001):

• Positive vs. negative feedback– Brown et al (2005): Negative feedback driven mostly by

satisfaction w/ product or transaction. Positive feedback mostly influenced by the customers’ identification with, and commitment to, the firm (over and above satisfaction)

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Approach

• Exploratory• Data collection:– SM– Snowball

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Some of the companies mentioned

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Findings

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Negative PositiveInteraction:-Consistency-Human Touch

Outcome:-Speed of reply / problem solving-…vs. alternative channels

Access:-Integration with other channels

Outcome:-Listening-Care

Interaction:- Tone of voice

Conclusions and Implications• Users expect companies to be present on SM,

including non-business platforms (e.g., Facebook)• Users pull firms into SM; Absence is quickly noticed

• Companies expected to use the various SM platforms efficiently, working around their limitations.• Listening vs. conversation tools• Multichannel customer management structure

• Communication effectiveness• Match how sender uses the media with preferences

of the receiver (Danaher & Rossiter, 2011).• Etiquette - e.g., hashtags, tags, etc.

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Conclusions and Implications

• Strategic use of SM by customers• Most effective channel to communicate with the

firm; Receiving extra service after praising firm• Prioritisation of SM creates perverse incentives

and may lead to counter-productive behaviours from customers (Schrage, 2011)

• eWoM as firmly established public behaviour• Research gap: eWoM as source of customer

insight or an opportunity for service recovery; specifically considering the high visibility of the interactions and the social benefits of eWoM

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Conclusions and Implications• Ambiguous role of SM as communications channel• Not owned or controlled by the firm => Mattila and Wirtz

(2004): suitable to vent frustration• Highly interactive => Mattila and Wirtz (2004): best to seek

redress• Research gap: Do customers perceive SM as remote or

interactive channel? Effect on behaviour and expectations?• Highly visible exchanges• Attempt to use for firm’s advantage - e.g., retweeting• May be seen as spam (Bajenaru, 2010) or attempt to bribe

opinion leaders (Mason, 2008)• Research gap: Do SM users appreciate or resent the

dissemination of their comments?

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

Ana Isabel CanhotoOxford Brookes Universitywww.anacanhoto.com@canhotoadomingos-canhoto@brookes.ac.uk

Moira ClarkHenley Business School www.hccmsite.co.uk@moiraclarkMoira.Clark@henley.reading.ac.uk

Customer service 140 characters at a time – the users’ perspective

Canhoto and Clark, 2012

References• Bajenaru, A. (2010). The Art and Science of Word-of-Mouth and Electronic Word-of-Mouth. Annals

of the Oradea University - Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, IX(XIX)(1), 4.7-4.16.

• Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the Word: Investigating Antecedents of Consumers' Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions and Behaviors in a Retailing Context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123-138.

• Danaher, P. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Comparing perceptions of marketing communication channels. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 6-42.

• Johnston, R. (2001). Linking complaint management to profit. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(1), 60-66.

• Mason, R. B. (2008). Word of mouth as a promotional tool for turbulent markets. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(3).

• Mattila, A. S., & Wirtz, J. (2004). Consumer complaining to firms: the determinants of channel choice. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(2), 147-155.

• Oliver, R. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469.

• Schrage, M. (2011, November). A Better Way to Handle Publicly Tweeted Complaints. Harvard Business Review.

• Stauss, B. (2002). The Dimensions of Complaint Satisfaction: Process and Outcome Complaint Satisfaction Versus Cold Fact and Warm Act Complaint Satisfaction”. Managing Service Quality, 12(3), 173- 183.

Canhoto and Clark, 2012